An open memo to President Obama on his visit to Africa from Theogene Rudasingwa, former Ambassador of Rwanda to the United States

Theogene Rudasingwa

Your Excellency,

Shortly, you and your family will board Air Force One and head to Africa, on a journey that will take you to Senegal, Tanzania and South Africa. During your first term in the White House you visited Ghana, where you made the famous 'Africa does not need strong men, it needs strong institutions' speech, and Egypt, before it became engulfed in the Arab spring revolutionary fervor.

In a sense, you return to the same huge planet (30.22 sq. km) comprising of 54 countries and a combined diverse population of 1.033 billion. It is the same Africa considered by many as the cradle of humankind, and one that has lured fortune hunters, be they slave traders, colonialists, vicious spies during the Cold War, or modern day states and corporate types in search of business and natural resources.

Being a good student of history, you are familiar with Africa's contending narratives. Our continent falls perfectly within the 'glass half-full or half-empty' analogy. Of late, many among Africa's ruling elite and the international community have amplified their voices; selling the idea that Africa is on the ascendancy, destined to become a powerhouse within the next few decades. To them, the glass is half-full. On the other hand, there are those who point to Africa's sore spots and open wounds; poverty, HIV/AIDS, illiteracy, poor infrastructure, poor governance, human rights abuses, violent conflicts and terrorism, failed or failing states, and environmental degradation. To these folks, Africa is your typical half-empty glass.

Between these two extremes of optimism and pessimism lies the true condition of the African people, which you are invited to seek to learn about, first and foremost. This is the world that, on behalf of the most powerful nation on planet earth, you can help overcome human suffering and shape the hopeful place of peace and prosperity that Africa desires to become. History will, unfortunately, remind you that Africa is not particularly a place to secure a permanent positive legacy among great American Presidents.

Yet, for you, Mr. President, the stakes could not be higher, simply because of the initial high expectations that greeted your Presidency. Africans then expected, and remain hopeful, albeit with reduced expectation, that the first African-American U.S. President with a very recent African ancestry will do much more than his predecessors.

I am convinced beyond doubt that you have pondered this matter over and over again. How will Africans remember you? How can this Africa visit create value for African and the American people? Here is some open advice, assuming it gets past the gatekeepers at the White House and State Department to get to you:

Less than 48 hours after the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, six of the nine states that had been covered in their entirety under the law’s “preclearance” formula have already taken steps toward restricting voting. In a 5-4 decision, the Court’s five conservative justices ruled Tuesday that the formula, which required states with a history of racial discrimination to “preclear” changes to their voting laws with the Department of Justice or a federal judge before enforcing them, was unconstitutional. Since then, these six states have already started moving on restrictions, many of which have adverse effects on the abilities of minorities, young people, and the poor to exercise their right to vote:

Texas: The Lone Star State saw its strict voter ID law and redistricting plan blocked by the DOJ and federal courts last year. Just two hours after Tuesday’s decision came down, the state’s attorney general issued a statement suggesting both laws may go into effect immediately. On Wednesday, Gov. Rick Perry (R) signed slightly modified congressional maps into law, apparently deciding not to veto them and reinstate the more blatantly discriminatory maps blocked by the court. These new maps will not be screened by the DOJ. And Thursday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated two federal court decisions that had relied upon the VRA in blocking the voter ID law and redistricting plan.

Arkansas: In April, the Arkansas legislature overrode Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe’s veto to pass their voter ID legislation. With preclearance out of the way, the state law can now be implemented without DOJ review.

These moves mean that of the nine preclearance states, only Alaska, Arizona (which just had its own voter ID law struck down), and Georgia (whose own voted ID law was likely ruled unconstitutional in the same decision) have not moved to restrict the right to vote in less than two days since the ruling. The Court’s majority held that the formula for determining which states are subject to federal oversight is outdated, leaving the law without any jurisdictions requiring preclearance. If these states are any evidence, they may have just opened the door for massive disenfranchisement.

7:16:11 — First 911 call from witness about a fight, calls for help heard.

7:16:55 — Gunshot heard on 911 call.

I have been watching the Zimmerman trial, and there are several things puzzling to me. If you run from someone, that is evidence that you are trying to avoid him or her or conflict. That's first. Next, if that person pursues you, and catches up to you, and fails to identify them self, at what point can you perceive that person as a threat? And when do you act on that threat, after they have pulled a weapon out? At what point does a Black man have the right to defend himself?

If you have been watching the trial, then you know that the trial has nothing to do with justice--it is a circus. But before I say this, it is clear that the trial and any trial is about perception. While I feel the prosecution is doing a good job, an internet survey has the defense winning. I don't see that, so it is clear that in the end, perception and not facts or evidence will decide this case. And if it boils down to perception then the view of 5 white women and 1 Hispanic or Black woman will decide the fate of the murderer of Trayvon Martin.

Since the Brown vs the Board of Ed Supreme Court decision establishing "separate but equal" unconstitutional, many Afrikan Americans believed that the court was a friend of Black folks. However, a quick review of the cases below will show the court has been both friend and foe, but mostly foe. Yesterday's decision in Shelby County v. Holder, it acted as foe.

What happened yesterday? The Supreme Court struck down a major provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, essentially gutting the Act of its power. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S. Although the 15th Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, provided that, "The right of U.S. citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Also the Amendment gave Congress the authority to enforce those rights and regulate the voting process. However, soon after the end of Reconstruction, starting in the 1870s, Southern Democratic legislators found other means to deny the vote to blacks, through violence, intimidation, and Jim Crow laws. And from 1890 to 1908, 10 Southern states wrote new constitutions with provisions that included literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses that collectively disenfranchised blacks. These state provisions were upheld by the Supreme Court. During the early 20th century, as Afrikan Americans and poor whites began to legally challenges these state laws, southern states devised new legislation to continue Black disfranchisement. And although there were numerous court cases brought before the Supreme Court, through the 1960s, Southern states effectively disfranchised most blacks. Hence, the need for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The VRA had 5 provisions or sections, the mostly important seemingly being Section 5, which required the United States Department of Justice, through an administrative procedure, or a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, through a declaratory judgment action "preclear" any attempt to change “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting..." in any "covered jurisdiction. In Shelby County v. Holder, Chief Justice John Roberts, in a 5-4 decision, took no action on the strict “preclearance” restrictions in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act itself. (Justice Clarence Thomas joined Roberts’ opinion but also wrote separately “to explain that I would find Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional as well.”) Under Section 5, state and local political subdivisions need federal government approval to make any change to their voting policies and systems. The court did, however, strike down Section 4’s coverage formula, which determines what jurisdictions have to follow Section 5’s restrictions. In other words, which states are not pointed out as needing preclearance or the way they were selected, is now unconstitutional. The problem is that Section 5 cannot be effectuated without Section 4. So really the court has eviscerated Section 5 by attacking Section 4. The court has put the ball in Congresses' hand, saying they must devised a new formula for deciding the states that will need preclearance in other to changes state voting laws. Therefore, unless Congress can “draft another formula” — and pass it — there is no coverage formula in place to which Section 5’s restrictions apply. Again, the court it did not rule on the constitutional validity of the idea that some places have such strong records of discrimination that they must seek federal approval before they may change their voting rules, it just stated the present coverage formula for selecting such states is antiquated. Presently the formula includes (counties) in the following states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia (all Tea Party strongholds.) The Conservative is doing nothing more than boistering conservatism because in reality, the justices are aware that in the present politically partisan and contentious environment, Congress will be unable to agree on a new coverage clearance (they weren't able to do so in 2006, and that was pre-Obama). And so the preclearance rule will lie dormant, and state provisions will return. And at the top of the list of provisions is voter-identification laws.

TEN IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT CASES RELEVANT TO AFRIKAN AMERICANS

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) Decreed a slave was his master's property and African Americans were not citizens; struck down the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional.Civil Rights Cases (1883) A number of cases are addressed under this Supreme court decision. Decided that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (the last federal civil rights legislation until the Civil Rights Act of 1957) was unconstitutional. Allowed private sector segregation.Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) The Court stated that segregation was legal and constitutional as long as "facilities were equal"—the famous "separate but equal" segregation policy.Powell v. Alabama (1932) The Supreme Court overturned the "Scottsboro Boys'” convictions and guaranteed counsel in state and federal courts.Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) The justices ruled that a court may not constitutionally enforce a "restrictive covenant" which prevents people of certain race from owning or occupying property.Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) Reversed Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" ruling. "[S]egregation [in public education] is a denial of the equal protection of the laws."Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964) This case challenged the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court ruled that the motel had no right "to select its guests as it sees fit, free from governmental regulation." Loving v. Virginia (1967) This decision ruled that the prohibition on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. Sixteen states that still banned interracial marriage at the time were forced to revise their laws.Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) The decision stated that affirmative action was unfair if it lead to reverse discrimination. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) The decision upheld affirmative action's constitutionality in education, as long it employed a "highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant's file" and did not consider race as a factor in a "mechanical way."

Does the Criminal Justice System Discriminate Against African-Americans? | Reprinted from CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATIONBill of Right in ActionWinter 1992 (9:1)

Justice may be blind but it is not color-blind

The Judicial SystemDoes the Criminal Justice System Discriminate Against African-Americans? A white truck driver named Reginald Denny was driving his big-rig through South Central Los Angeles during the April 1992 Los Angeles riots. Television viewers all over Los Angeles watched in horror as a helicopter camera zoomed in on Denny being pulled from his truck and beaten by several young black men. The videotape of this attack became almost as famous as the one that helped set off the rioting -- the amateur video that showed policemen surrounding and beating Rodney King. Based on videotape of the Denny beating, the police arrested five young African-American men. They were charged with many crimes, including attempted murder. None could post bail, which exceeded $500,000 in one case. Eventually, three of the five were ordered to stand trial for attacking Denny and several other victims. The Denny case became the focus for a longstanding feeling in the African-American community that blacks cannot get justice in our system. Many people in the community came forward to support the defendants. The camera seemed to show that somebody was guilty, but many people insisted that the three black men would never get a fair trial from a criminal justice system dominated by white prosecutors, jurors, and judges. Is this perception valid? [Editor's note: In a controversial verdict, the defendants were acquitted on the most serious charges in the case.]The Color of Justice Over the years, critics of the criminal justice system have cited many cases and studies. For example, statistical studies suggest that more than half of all black males in large cities can expect to be arrested at least once during their lifetime, while only 14 percent of white males are ever arrested. African-Americans make up 12 percent of the U.S. population, but they are 45 percent of all prison inmates and 40 percent of those sentenced to death. In 1992, there were more black men in prison than in college. Even more startling, a quarter of all African-American males aged 20-29 are locked up, on probation, or on parole right now. The question remains whether these statistics are the result of a racist criminal justice system or have other causes. Social scientists and politicians have argued about this question for decades. In a controversial 1975 article titled, "White Racism, Black Crime, and American Justice," criminologist Robert Staples argued that there was discrimination. He said the legal system was made by white men to protect white interests and keep blacks down. Staples charged that the system was characterized by second-rate legal help for black defendants, biased jurors, and judges who discriminate in sentencing. A dozen years later, sociologist William Wilbanks rejected the discrimination argument. In his book, The Myth of a Racist Criminal Justice System, Wilbanks reviewed scores of studies that seemed to show statistical inequalities between whites and blacks in arrest rates, imprisonment, and other areas of criminal justice. He felt the inequalities were due to factors other than racial discrimination, such as poverty and the defendant's prior record. Other sociologists, too, have suggested that the apparent inequalities have more to do with poverty than race. Street crimes such as robbery and assault, prominent in the statistics, are often committed by people from poor backgrounds. In 1992, almost 45 percent of all African-American children grow up below the official poverty line, compared to only 16 percent of all white youngsters. These figures grew worse in the 1980s, as job opportunities gradually disappeared from most urban black communities. During the 1990s, however, poverty rates dropped and so did the crime rate. The connection between poverty and crime has long been noted. During the 1930s, a much larger part of the white population was poor, and whites committed a greater percentage of street crime. Whites then accounted for nearly 80 percent of those in prison -- compared to 40 percent today. The question of poverty alone may well account for many of the apparent inequalities in the system. A Rand Institute study in 1983, however, unearthed some disturbing data. Rand compared the treatment of whites and blacks at key decision points in the criminal justice system, such as sentencing. The researchers found that black defendants seemed to be treated more harshly. However, the researchers did not identify a cause for these inequalities. Later studies have provided more insight into this troubling data.Plea Bargaining The San Jose Mercury News conducted a massive study of 700,000 California legal cases over a 10-year period. The paper reported in December 1991 that 33 percent of the white adults who were arrested, but had no prior record, were able to get felony charges against them reduced. Only 25 percent of the African-Americans and Latinos with no priors were as successful in plea bargaining. The Mercury News study did not blame intentional racism for these inequalities. It did, however, suggest that subtle cultural fears and insensitivity contributed to the problem. The study noted that over 80 percent of all California prosecutors and judges are white, while more than 60 percent of those arrested are non-white.Jury Verdicts In 1985, Cornell law professor Sheri Lynn Johnson reviewed a dozen mock jury studies. She concluded that the "race of the defendant significantly and directly affects the determination of guilt." In these studies, identical trials were simulated, sometimes with white defendants and sometimes with African-Americans. Professor Johnson discovered that white jurors were more likely to find a black defendant guilty than a white defendant, even though the mock trials were based on the same crime and the same evidence. And Professor Johnson found that black jurors behaved with the reverse bias. They found white defendants guilty more often than black defendants. Furthermore, the race of the victim in the case affected both groups. If the victim was black, white jurors tended to find a white defendant less blameworthy. In the same way, if the victim was white, black jurors found black defendants less blameworthy. According to these mock jury experiments, both white and black jurors seem to discriminate. Professor Johnson, however, did not think the juror bias was intentional. "Because the process of attributing guilt on the basis of race appears to be subconscious," Johnson says, "jurors are unlikely either to be aware of or to be able to control that process." The mock trials did have one encouraging result. When white and black mock jurors met together, as many real juries do, the effect of race tended to disappear. This result seems to indicate that the best way to eliminate racial bias in verdicts is to select racially mixed juries. The U.S. Supreme Court has moved in this direction by prohibiting both prosecutors and defense lawyers from eliminating prospective jurors solely because of race. [See Batson v. Kentucky (1986) and Georgia v. McCollum (1992)]Sentencing The 1983 Rand Institute study found that convicted African-Americans were more likely than whites to go to prison. And their sentences were longer. "This disparity," the study concluded, "suggests that probation officers, judges, and parole boards are exercising discretion in sentencing and/or release decisions in ways that result in de facto discrimination against blacks." De facto means the discrimination exists in fact, but without legal authority -- and it may not be intentional. Unintended discrimination can occur at many points in the legal process. Probation officers often prepare reports to help judges make sentencing decisions. Reports include information on the criminal's prior record and background. Since many African-American criminals grow up poor, their records often show problems like unemployment and violence in the home. Judges could often be tempted to assume black criminals are more dangerous than white criminals, who more often come from middle-class backgrounds. Some observers feel that such assumptions can lead judges to sentence black offenders more harshly than white offenders.Death Penalty The state of Georgia was the subject of a careful study of 2,000 murder cases prosecuted during the 1970s. The study showed that defendants convicted of killing whites were more than four times more likely to receive the death penalty than those convicted of murdering blacks. The study also revealed that black defendants who murdered whites had by far the greatest chance of being sentenced to death. A Georgia black man who had been sentenced to death for killing a white police officer used this study in his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. He claimed the study proved that Georgia's jurors and judges discriminated against African-American defendants. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court accepted the results of the study, but ruled that it did not prove the discrimination was intentional. Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis F. Powell concluded that the study failed to "demonstrate a constitutionally significant risk of racial bias affecting the Georgia capital sentencing process." [McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)] On the whole, most studies confirm that some racial discrimination exists in the American criminal justice system, but that it is not intentional. It is rooted in subtle assumptions and fears that are deeply ingrained in the wider society. Critics of the system, however, insist that inequalities, regardless of their basis, should not be swept under the rug. They maintain that any discrimination is intolerable, and we must all make a serious attempt to do away with it.

P.S. George Zimmerman's case started today. Will history repeat itself in this case or is America post-racial?

Yesterday's New York Post wrote an article about Serena Williams comments in an upcoming Rolling Stones magazine. Serena Williams says in the interview with Rolling Stone magazine after reading about the Steubenville rape case, "Do you think it was fair, what they got? They did something stupid, but I don't know. I'm not blaming the girl, but if you're a 16-year-old and you're drunk like that, your parents should teach you—don't take drinks from other people," she told the magazine. "She's 16, why was she that drunk where she doesn't remember? It could have been much worse. She's lucky. Obviously I don't know, maybe she wasn't a virgin, but she shouldn't have put herself in that position, unless they slipped her something, then that's different."

Serena Williams quickly offered an apology for her comments about a teenage rape victim, as the Western media began to pounce on her comments. In her apology said that the Steubenville rape case shocked and saddened her. According to Williams, what was written about what she supposedly said is insensitive and hurtful, and she would never say or insinuate that the victim was at all to blame. Stating that it is a `horrible tragedy` for a person to be raped, and at such a young age, Williams further said that both the families of the rape victims and the accused have had to suffer the consequences, adding that she is currently reaching out to the girl`s family to let her know that she is sorry for what was written in the Rolling Stone article. Stating that she had fought in her entire career for women`s equality , rights, respect in their fields, Williams also said that she has done everything that she can to support women, adding that her prayers and support will always go out to the rape victim.

The actual Steubenville incident involved two high school football players in Steubenville Ohio, Trent Mays and Ma'Lik Richmond. The boys were each sentenced to a year in juvenile jail in March for the rape. The players were busted after bragging about the events in an online video. Details of the incident involve a young girl who had drunken herself unconscious was taken by the teenage boys from one party, photographed nude and semi-nude, and taken to a basement where one of the boys, Mays, tried to make her perform oral sex. The girl ended up being digitally penetrated vaginally by Ma'lik Richmond and Trent Mays, two players from the celebrated high school football team. The case gained widespread attention in part because of the callousness with which other students used social media to gossip about it. The trial judge found ruled that it was impossible for the impaired girl to have given consent. May received an additional years for his social media activity.

Did Serena blame the victim? We'll find out once that article comes out. But her comments are pithy and worth listening to by young folks that drinking themselves into a stupor or worst unconsciousness. The young men acted criminally and she acknowledge that, she just felt than as a woman, one has to try and carry oneself to prevent fools from acting foolishly and by being that drunk, one invites trouble, especially from drunken teenage boys. Taking responsible to one's action is anathema it American society, this includes sometimes both victim and victimizer. Serena's words gave us something to think about as she reminds us one needs to act and carry oneself responsibly.

If you think that Juneteenth is not a real holiday, then you should think again. A holiday is a recognized celebration. It does not have to be sanctioned by the government. However, though Juneteenth is not a recognized national holiday, it is a state holiday recognized in 42 of the 50 states. In Texas, Juneteenth has been an official state holiday since 1980--it is considered a "partial staffing" holiday. The origin of Juneteenth lies in the commemoration of the announcement of the abolition of slavery. While there are now Juneteenth celebrations nationwide, the event originated in Texas and has been celebrated in Houston since the 1860′s. It commemorates a Union officer’s official announcement – in Galveston, on June 19 (in fact, Juneteenth is a portmanteau of June and nineteenth), 1865 – that the Civil War was over and all slaves were free. The declaration was made two months after the war ended, and two and a half years after the Emancipation Proclamation. There were approximately 250,000 slaves in Texas at the time. Former slaves in Galveston rejoiced in the streets with jubilant celebrations. Juneteenth celebrations began in Texas the following year.

During the US Civil War, a number of proclamations, and general orders freeing enslaved Afrikans were issued. Some Afrikans were emancipated as early as 1861 when Union forces captured outlying areas of the Confederacy such as the Sea Islands of South Carolina, the Tidewater area of Virginia (Hampton and Norfolk) or New Orleans. Other enslaved folks emancipated by escaping during the excitement and disruption of war. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation liberated all blacks residing in territory captured from the Confederates after January 1, 1863. Though this act did not end slavery, it was a signal to many Afrikans that if they ran away, the Union forces would protect them. However, for the majority of Afrikan Americans, freedom came only in 1865 when Confederate commander Robert E. Lee surrendered his army to Federal forces at Appomattox Court House in Virginia effectively ending the war. News of Lee's surrender spread quickly through the former slave states east of the Mississippi River but state west of the Mississippi received the news later. Hence, though the war and slavery had potentially ended, many of the enslaved west of the Mississippi remained enslaved. Texas was such a place--it had remained isolated from both Union and Confederate forces during the war. In fact it had become a place of refuge for slaveholders seeking to insure that their "property" would not hear of freedom. So in Texas, the pro-slavery forces manage to keep the new of Afrikan freedom from their enslaved population until June 19, 1865, when Federal troops landed at Galveston, Texas and issued General Order No. 3. Word of emancipation gradually spread over the state.

General Order No. 3The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property, between former masters and slaves and the connection heretofore existing between them, becomes that between employer and hired labor. The Freedmen are advised to remain at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts; and they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere.

A Juneteenth celebration in the early 1900s

When the news came, Afrikans immediately abandoned their plantations. Many whom had been brought from surrounding states, returned to those lands in an effort to reunite with loved ones. Although news of emancipation came at different times during that Texas summer of 1865, June 19th began the day the Afrikan population gradually settled as their day of celebration. As early 1866 they held parades, picnics, barbecues, and gave speeches in remembrance of their liberation.

By the 1900s these celebrations and festivities had grown to include baseball games, horse races, railroad excursions, and formal balls. By that time Juneteenth had officially become Texas Emancipation Day and was sponsored by black churches and civic organizations. Indeed, Juneteenth had become so respectable that white politicians including various Texas governors addressed the largest gatherings in Houston and Dallas. In Texas in particular, for Afrikan Americans Juneteenth was "the holiday." The Fourth of July paled in comparison.

As the Afrikan population of Texas spread to other western states, they carried the celebration with them and before long Juneteenth was celebrated in Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland, Seattle, and San Diego. The celebration began to spread to communities east of Texas such as Washington, D.C., and Birmingham, Alabama as well.

Economic and cultural forces caused a decline in Juneteenth celebrations beginning in the early 20th century, particularly the Depression.* But by time of the Black Power movement and in many ways because of it, many Afrikan Americans began to revive the celebration. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s Juneteenth has continued to enjoy a growing interest from communities and organizations throughout the country. And you folks in the eight states that don't celebrate it, "What's up?" By the way those states are: Arizona, Hawaii, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah.

*As many Afrikan Americans began to integrate into or identify more with the larger white society, they began to shun Juneteenth and tend to identify and celebrate the national holiday, the Fourth of July. They forgot all about what Frederick Douglass taught them. Click link http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/douglassjuly4.html, if you need reminding (and have time to read it).

Last Wednesday, Arts For Art, Inc. a not-for-profit, multicultural organization dedicated to avantjazz movements, opened its season presenting a Lifetime Achievement Award to Milford Graves, the legendary drummer, scientist, herbalist, martial artist and acupuncturist. Professor Graves is truly a Renaissance man whose work has for too long gone under the radar. His groundbreaking work and scientific approach to understanding the effect of rhythm on the heart is matched with a belief in the power of art to move and inspire.

I attended the program and Professor Graves as usual was on point. I was particularly impressed with his performance and left with a greater appreciation of his talents, abilities, and his work. I can proudly say, that Milford Graves, I call him Professor Graves, is one of teachers. For six years I studied with him, and I continue to study and learn from him today. Much of my wisdom and outlook has been influenced by his approach to life, living, and how the inner workings of the body is a reflection of life. He is the only genus I ever met. Seriously.

Hallmark “Mahogany” Father’s Day Card For Mother’s Sparks Debate Yesterday, we came across yet another brief discussion that was sparked surrounding a Father’s Day card (pictured above) created by popular Hallmark-affiliated brand “Mahogany,” which was developed to appeal specifically to African-American consumers. The outside of the card, which reads “For My Mom On Father’s Day,” left a few folks feeling that Mahogany’s decision to sell this card for the umpteenth year in a row was a blatant attempt to continue capitalizing on the negative single mother/absent father stereotype that society often associates with the African-American community. On the other side of the debate were those who felt that the card was a genuinely heartfelt gesture that gave those in the community without fathers present in their lives for whatever reason the chance to let their mothers know that they too are appreciated on this day for stepping into the role of both parents as best they could. While many single parents do in fact step into the role of the missing parent everyday, many debating the topic also felt that women can’t be fathers or teach young boys how to be men and fathers can’t be mothers or teach young girls how to be women, so fathers should be able to be celebrated on their holiday without having to share the day with single mothers and vice versa. An additional point was made that Hallmark also sells similar cards that are not marketed towards African-Americans for people without both parents. So what say you, Bossip fam? Is Mahogany trying to make money by reinforcing a negative stereotype that undermines black fathers and families? Or is the card nothing more than a positive gesture meant to provide an option for those without both parents who want to show their mother appreciation on Father’s Day?Photo Credit: Facebook

Good morning. It’s good to be home on this Father’s Day with my girls, and it’s an honor to spend some time with all of you today in the house of our Lord. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus closes by saying, “Whoever hears these words of mine, and does them, shall be likened to a wise man who built his house upon a rock: the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock.” [Matthew 7: 24-25] Here at Apostolic, you are blessed to worship in a house that has been founded on the rock of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. But it is also built on another rock, another foundation – and that rock is Bishop Arthur Brazier. In forty-eight years, he has built this congregation from just a few hundred to more than 20,000 strong – a congregation that, because of his leadership, has braved the fierce winds and heavy rains of violence and poverty; joblessness and hopelessness. Because of his work and his ministry, there are more graduates and fewer gang members in the neighborhoods surrounding this church. There are more homes and fewer homeless. There is more community and less chaos because Bishop Brazier continued the march for justice that he began by Dr. King’s side all those years ago. He is the reason this house has stood tall for half a century. And on this Father’s Day, it must make him proud to know that the man now charged with keeping its foundation strong is his son and your new pastor, Reverend Byron Brazier. Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it. But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing – missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it. You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled – doubled – since we were children. We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it. How many times in the last year has this city lost a child at the hands of another child? How many times have our hearts stopped in the middle of the night with the sound of a gunshot or a siren? How many teenagers have we seen hanging around on street corners when they should be sitting in a classroom? How many are sitting in prison when they should be working, or at least looking for a job? How many in this generation are we willing to lose to poverty or violence or addiction? How many? Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools, and more outstanding teachers in the classroom, and more afterschool programs for our children. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities.